Author Ed

Clackamas Town Center and Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings

Ed 1 Comment

Much has been said and written regarding the two public shootings last week in Oregon and Connecticut (and please don’t forget the shooting in Colorado earlier this year), with pundits of all stripes claiming to know the reason why these things have happened. The reasons are varied and come from all sides: removing school prayer; violent video games; ease of buying guns and rifles; desensitization due to prevalence of abortion in America; and on it goes.

But I believe all of these reasons are just symptoms of a deeper problem. One research paper I just finished writing is about how social media is serving as a replacement for living in relationships with each other and with God  (yes, I see the irony as I use social media to share this information).

In short, God created humans to be in relationship with each other and to be in relationship with Him. When we are in a right relationship with God, then we experience shalom (God’s peace). Because of sin, we live in broken relationships between each other–and with God–thereby missing out on the shalom that God has promised us. Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay the price for our sin and to heal our relationship with God, but sin still remains in us while we live on this earth. Indeed, we continue to seek other ways to fill the void of the missing shalom in our lives with all sorts of temporal things, from the seemingly innocuous (like food or video games) to the illegal and immoral (like drugs or sexual promiscuity).

I’ve commented previously on a book by Sherry Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (read about it here on Amazon.com) which explores, from a clinical psychologist’s point of view, the replacement of humans by machines in relationships and the subsequent entwinement of man and machine. Now, I’ve recently started reading Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob by Lee Siegel (read about it here) and some words in the introduction of the book made a lot of sense.

The Internet as technical innovation is the answer to our contemporary condition of hectic, disconnected, fragmented activity. A century of technological change has filled our busy days with near-simultaneous disparate experiences. Being online now allows us to organize these experiences, almost to unify them. (What is “compartmentalization” but a way to keep several “windows” open at the same time?) Despite our lamentations that e-mail is running and ruining our lives, we can keep up, in some type of manageable fashion, with the accelerated rhythms of clashing life spheres.

In the same way, the Internet’s social and psychological nature is the answer to a century of social and psychological change. During that time, the individual was gradually elevated above society. Satisfying our own desires has become more important than balancing our relationships with other people.

The age of Freud, the Existential Self, the Therapeutic Self, the Confessional Self, the Performing Self, the age of the memoir, the Me Generation, the Culture of Narcissism–life has become more mentalized, more inward, more directed toward the gratification of personal desire. The collapse of the family and the preponderance of people living alone are aspects of this trend; tragically, so is the shocking frequency of violence, even of mass murder, in public places. We live more in our own heads than any society has at any time, and for some people now the only reality that exists is the one inside their heads.

… The Internet magnifies these pathological patterns of behavior, but it didn’t create them.

It seems that we are now reaping what we have sown by creating a society where the “me” is more important than the “us.” Although we were created to live communally in relationship with God and with one another, we prize our “alone-ness.” This is even evident in the Church as Christians jump on the libertarian bandwagon, all the while ignoring the dichotomy of claiming that the individual has the right to decide what’s right for himself but forgetting that it is God who is sovereign over all and thus decides for us what is right and wrong (regardless of whether we heed His commands or not).

We’ll probably never know why James Holmes entered a movie theater and killed 12 people or why Adam Lanza entered an elementary school and killed 26 (including children), but I think it would be good for us to start understanding that the idea of being “alone together” has unintended consequences that are not acceptable. It’s time to come back and live together in relationships the way God intended.

Updated December 18, 2012 21:42 hrs.

Living Today Alone Together

Ed

This is the last part of my thoughts from reading Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other by Sherry Turkle, a licensed clinical psychologist. Click here to read part 2.

One of my favorite all-time sci-fi books is Gateway by Frederik Pohl. This book was first published in 1976 and I first read it as a teenager in the 80’s. One of the more interesting concepts in this book was that the main character, Bob Broadhead, takes counsel from a computerized therapist, Sigfrid. I always thought that this was some fantastical dream springing out of the mind of a talented writer. In reality, he was just a good student of human nature and life now imitates art.

In Sherry Turkle’s book, she recounts an experiment she conducted at a nursing home. Turkle brought in several sociable robots, ones that can react and respond to your words and actions. In this case, it was a My Real Baby and she records the experiences of “Jonathan,” a seventy-four year old retired computer technician. After living at the nursing for two years, Jonathan feels isolated and cut-off from the other residents, mainly because he is not sociable and curt to others when they try to reach out to him.

But Jonathan warms up to My Real Baby after a few months and eventually “discusses his life and current problems–mostly loneliness–with the robot.” In fact, when questioned about this, Jonathan replies:

For things about my life that are very private, I would enjoy talking more to a computer … but things that aren’t strictly private, I would enjoy more talking to a person. … Because if the thing is very highly private and very personal, it might be embarrassing to talk about it to another person, and I might be afraid of being ridiculed for it … and it [My Real Baby] wouldn’t criticize me. … Or, let’s say that I wanted to blow off steam. … [I could] express with the computer emotions that I feel I could not express with another person, to a person.

It’s interesting that people are so cautious of being hurt by other people that we would rather talk to a robot which offers nothing more than pre-programmed responses to certain input. Have we done such a poor job of Christ’s command to “love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34).

What does this have to do with life issues? Ultimately, life issues all revolve around how we view one another, care for one another, love one another. Do we teach our children that they were created by God for something better than a one-night stand or a hook-up or a “friend with benefits”? Do we reach out to the woman facing an unplanned pregnancy and tell her that she is loved through our words and, more importantly, our actions? Do we look at the person with a disability and treat them as if they were an inconvenience in our lives? Do we ignore the elderly by shuffling them off to nursing homes so we don’t have to care for them ourselves?

In the command to love one another as Christ has loved us (John 13:33-35), Christians are told to open themselves to relationship with each other, which can sometimes result in getting hurt by the other person. Turkle clearly makes the connection between the rise in being “connected” with others online with a desire to avoid being hurt which has clear implications to the Christian witness.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m trouble by the thought of artificial life replacing real, living people whether in relationships or for other purposes. Eve was created by God for Adam because no other creature satisfied his need for a relationship with a like being (Genesis 2:18-25). Is this desire to seek robotic or online avatar-based relationships evidence of a yet deeper corruption or rejection of God’s perfect design for all persons?

Gattaca Coming to a Doctor’s Office Near You

Ed 3 Comments

To be honest, the first time I watched the movie Gattaca, I thought it was one of the most boring movies I had ever watched. However, since then it has become one of my favorite sci-fi movies and I’ve watched it several times finding new nuances each time.

In the movie, genetically engineering your child is an option, you don’t have to do it. However, the local school won’t accept the un-engineered child because the insurance risk is too high; the better jobs, like engineer or astronaut, aren’t open to un-engineered persons because they’re deemed worthy of only doing menial labor; and what happens to the genetically engineered, “perfect” human when he suffers paralysis in a car accident and can no longer do the things he was programmed to do?

Too far-fetched to really happen? Not so. A new Telegraph article summarizes an article written by University of Oxford philosophy professor Julian Savulescu, who believes that we have a moral obligation to genetically engineer “better” people. The original article appears in the September issue of Reader’s Digest UK.

In the professor’s article, as partially reprinted in the Telegraph, he writes about how we should be screening for “personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and disposition to violence.” Because we can do this, he believes “that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children” because they will be “less likely to harm themselves and others.”

He continues (as reported in the Telegraph):

“If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring — rather than consigning them to the natural lottery — then we should.”

He said that unlike the eugenics movements, which fell out of favour when it was adopted by the Nazis, the system would be voluntary and allow parents to choose the characteristics of their children.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this is still eugenics. Rather than focusing on the negative aspects (i.e. don’t let the undesirables have children), this is focusing on the positive aspects (i.e. let’s make sure everyone is has an “ethical” offspring). But the main unanswered question is: “Who decides which traits are desirable and which traits are not?”

And even though Savulescu says it should be voluntary, as we can see with the current HHS contraception mandate in the U.S., someone will eventually decide that it shouldn’t be voluntary and the government should force people to do its will. Sinful human nature being what it is eventually leads to this path. (Reference the conversation between Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala in Star Wars Episode II when they are in a field on Naboo discussing poliltics…Anakin thinks it would be okay to use the Force to make star systems get in line…sound familiar?)

The article continues:

“We’re routinely screening embryos and foetuses for conditions such as cystic fibrosis and Down’s syndrome, and there’s little public outcry,” he said.

“What’s more, few people protested at the decisions in the mid- 2000s to allow couples to test embryos for inherited bowel and breast cancer genes, and this pushes us a lot close to creating designer humans.”

Here’s my next question: “Who is responsible if a doctor tries to genetically engineer an undesirable trait out of a child but the child still develops that trait?” People are suing doctors and hospitals now for “wrongful birth” issues when a child is born with a genetic disease that the parents aren’t told about or weren’t caught in the genetic testing. What will happen in the future when someone says he will remove an undesirable trait and doesn’t do it?

“Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.”

This is where I start getting upset. Why does Savulescu paint everyone who is against his idea as fearing genetics? That automatically puts people on the defensive or makes them start to think that there’s nothing wrong with genetic engineering. To make my point clear, I’m not afraid of genetics, I’m afraid of what some kook will do with it. Has it occurred to Savulescu that if you can genetically engineer certain traits out of a gene sequence, then you can genetically engineer them into a sequence? What if someone wants to engineer a person worse than Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot? What if someone wants to engineer a soldier that experiences no fear going into combat or remorse over killing someone (as in the movie Soldier)?

Before we go further into this brave new world, we should keep in mind the old adage, “Just because we can do something doesn’t mean that we should.”

PS: The Telegraph article has an online poll which asks: “Should we consider genetically screening behavioural traits?” As of 4:44 p.m. EDT on August 16, “Yes, everybody benefits, including the child” received 36 percent of the votes while “No, it is wrong to play God in this way” received 64 percent.

Updated 2:40 pm. on August 17, 2012.

Pro-life Plank Denied by DNC Platform Committee

Ed

This is a follow-up to my previous post, It’s Not About Politics, It’s About Who You Are.

Well folks, it’s almost official (of course, it won’t be official until the final platform is adopted in convention). The platform committee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has rejected any notion of supporting human life as a plank.

Democrats For Life of America (DFLA) proposed the following plank for inclusion of the party platform (as reported by LifeNews):

“We respect the conscience of each American and recognize that members of our Party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, like abortion and the death penalty. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength and we welcome into our ranks all Americans who may hold differing positions on these and other issues.

“However, we can find common ground. We believe that we can reduce the number of abortions because we are united in our support for policies that assist families who find themselves in crisis or unplanned pregnancies. We believe that women deserve to have a breadth of options available as they face pregnancy: including, among others, support and resources needed to handle the challenges of pregnancy, adoption, and parenthood; access to education, healthcare, childcare; and appropriate child support. We envision a new day without financial or societal barriers to bringing a planned or unplanned pregnancy to term.”

Some pro-abortion politicians have to stated that they want to reduce the number of abortions and that any abortion that occurs should be safe and legal. Well, that sounds like what DFLA’s proposed plank is saying but we don’t hear any pro-aborts supporting it. In fact, the plank didn’t say anything about overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortions illegal, yet the staunchly pro-abortion platform committee dismissed it out of hand.

In fact, something that should worry the radical pro-abortion forces in control of the DNC is the decreasing numbers of pro-life office holders. Since the population usually polls around a 50-50 split in terms of pro-life or pro-abortion, with one side taking the lead and then the other side reclaiming it, it should concern the DNC that pro-life Americans are abandoning the DNC.

According to DFLA, in 1978, the Democratic Party has seen the number of pro-life Democrats shrink over the years.

“In 1978, the Democratic Party, held a 292-seat majority in the U.S. House, with 125 pro-life Democrats. Increased partisanship over the pro-life issue—including the rejection of pro-life candidates within the Democratic Party—caused many of the pro-life Democratic districts to elect Republican candidates. In fact, the number of pro-choice Democrats in the House has essentially remained around 167.  It is the number of pro-life Democrats that decreased from 125 to only 17, leaving Democrats overall with only 184 Members,” it said.

As I have stated over and over again, it would be great if ALL political parties in the U.S. believed in and upheld the sanctity of human life. Then we could actually talk about the differences between the various parties. Until then, human life needs to be held as the first human right that needs to be defended; for without it, all other so-called “rights” are meaningless.

To find out more about Democrats For Life of America, click here.

Pro-abortion Writer Says, “I Wish My Mother Had Aborted Me”

Ed

On August 6, 2012 a pro-abortion writer using the pseudonym Lynn Beisner wrote an online article entitled “I Wish My Mother Had Aborted Me.” The writer comes to this conclusion because of her personal experience of abuse as a child and the struggles she has had to overcome.

Beisner recoils at stories such as the one belonging to Rebecca Kiessling, a woman who was conceived in rape–a situation where many people, including pro-lifers, would say it is okay to abort the baby–and is now a wife, mother, attorney, writer, and pro-life speaker. Beisner believes that “if we want to keep our reproductive rights, we must be willing to tell our stories, to be willing and able to say, ‘I love my life, but I wish my mother had aborted me.'”

In recounting her own story, Beisner states, because of her mother’s own experiences of traumatic brain injury, rape, parental suicide, and an unplanned pregnancy due to coercive sex:

With that constellation of factors, there was a very high statistical probability that my mother would be an abusive parent, that we would spend the rest of our lives in crushing poverty, and that we would both be highly vulnerable to predatory organizations and men. And that is exactly what happened. She abused me, beating me viciously and often. We lived in bone-crushing poverty, and our little family became a magnet for predatory men and organizations. …

If this were an anti-choice story, this is the part where I would tell you how I overcame great odds and my life now has special meaning. I would ask you to affirm that, of course, you are happy I was born, and that the world would be a darker, poorer place without me.

It is true that in the past 12 years, I have been able to rise above the circumstances of my birth and build a life that I truly love. But no one should have to make such a Herculean struggle for simple normalcy. Even given the happiness and success I now enjoy, if I could go back in time and make the choice for my mother, it would be abortion.

The world would not be a darker or poorer place without me. Actually, in terms of contributions to the world, I am a net loss. Everything that I have done—including parenting, teaching, researching, and being a loving partner—could have been done as well if not better by other people. Any positive contributions that I have made are completely offset by what it has cost society to help me overcome the disadvantages and injuries of my childhood to become a functional and contributing member of society.

As I read these words, my emotions didn’t turn to hate or anger or (even) disgust. Instead, I could only pity her and those who hold her views.

I felt pity because the writer lives in a totally utilitarian world in which the only value a person has is measured by what she contributes to society. And if she doesn’t contribute as much as she takes out, then her life is totally useless and she considers herself so valueless that she believes it would have been better if her mother had aborted her years ago.

I felt pity for the writer because she can see no other reason for her life than to make a difference in this world, and even then, the differences she makes as a mother and as an academic (as stated in her bio) don’t really seem to matter because she thinks that her mother’s choice to not abort her ruined the fractured life of her mother even more.

I felt pity because Beisner’s thoughts portray a life that doesn’t seem to understand that all life is precious, no matter the circumstances of the beginning of that life, the past or current state of that life, or the way that life will end. She misses the point that all human life is precious and valuable because of God’s creative work and Jesus Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. Because there is something beyond what we can see before us, our lives have value and meaning beyond measure.

And though Beisner and I don’t agree on this topic, I would have to say that, yes, the world would be a darker and poorer place without her because it would be missing one more of God’s children due to our sinful human nature.

That’s why we must never give up this fight. We do it not only for the temporal lives of the babies saved, women and men healed, handicapped cared for, and elderly honored. We do it because these are opportunities to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with others. We do it because God “is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9 NKJV).

Lynn Beisner–whoever you may be–you are in my prayers.